Report this content as offensive or unsuitable

Tell us about this content

Important, please read before continuing

This form should only be used for serious complaints about comments posted to the Page Comments section that break the NHS Choices Moderation Rules. This would include, but is not limited to harassing, abusive, threatening, libelous, or otherwise objectionable material.

The comment about which you complain will be sent to a moderator, who will decide whether it breaks the NHS Choices Moderation Rules. You will be contacted in due course once a decision has been made.

Please explain why this content is offensive or unsuitable

Your email address (mandatory)

We need your email address so we can keep you updated about the status of your complaint.

Original content

Back in the mid-nineteenth century there were surgeons who would wipe their scalpels on the soles of their boots in order to show their disdain for the concept of germs. How, after all, could something exist that could not be seen?
The fact that western technology cannot demonstrate how homoeopathy works is quite different from therefore asserting that it *cannot* work.
As for the placebo effect: as an explanation it is hardly more scientific. Explain, if you will, how believing you will get better means that you get better - in scientific terms, that is. As it happens I have no problem with the concept, but then, I'm not tied down by scientific dogma.
As for the referred placebo effect: explain, if you will, how that differs from faith healing?
It might be worth bearing in mind that Hahnemann, the founder of homoeopathy, was as surprised as anyone else at his findings. Despite what the anti-homoeopathy brigade would have you believe, he was a true scientist, who based his ideas on a very large number of practical experiments.
As for those who dismiss anecdotal experience: bear in mind that it was Einstein who said that knowledge without experience has no value.
Experience really is more important than knowledge.